The discussion around here the past couple days has been top notch, the sort of civil and spirited roundabout that we ought to have more often.  Don’t let the length of the comments scare you off:  there’s good stuff down there, and none of it by me!

I don’t have too much more to say on this whole subject (really!), but remembered tonight one little bit of data that I think is significant for discerning how someone ought to vote when it comes to someone like Gingrich.

First, though, some prefatory remarks by my friend Francis Beckwith:

Adultery, of course, is one temptation. And I highly doubt that Gingrich would succumb to that temptation ever again. But the cluster of character traits that gave rise to these infidelities is a different story all together….

This is not to diminish or call into question Gingrich’s conversion. Quite the opposite. For, as the Catholic Catechism teaches, absolution of sins does not eradicate all the effects and consequences of those sins on the shaping of one’s character. This requires ongoing conversion, including detaching oneself from those things that may provide an occasion for sin.

The Catechism is a helpful guide on the matter, but there’s no reason to get hung up on the “Catholic” part of it.  It’s sound, prudential advice that’s easily recognizable as wise. We don’t let alcoholics near the liquor cabinet, after all, and we batten down the hatches on the internet for the porn addict.  Repentance, if it is anything, means the change of a life, and that means understanding the peculiar temptations a person has and going about things a different way.

I’m with Beckwith that Gingrich probably won’t have another affair.  Who can tell for sure, but let’s just play the odds.  Benefit of the doubt, and the like.  Beckwith puts the question well, though:  will seeking the Presidency deepen the “cluster of character traits” that were at the heart of his infidelities?

At a few points in my many conversations, I’ve made this argument in one form or another.  And the rejoinder is simple:  we don’t know what sort of character traits produced the infidelity, so we ought turn a blind eye while casting our secret ballots.   It’s a good response, as we don’t really know what caused the infidelities.  And while it may have been the pressures of public office, who can know for sure?  The missing premise here goes a long ways toward softening up the case, and making the vote for Gingrich seem a lot more plausible.

Except we know what was behind Gingrich’s affairs.  Gingrich has already told us.  We just forgot about it, because it was back in March of last year when no one was paying attention.  I quote:

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

He goes on to talk about being a grandfather and having daughters that like him, which along with love of country and all his hard work are goods not to be frowned upon.  But his candid admission that the situation that he is now seeking to return to, with its immense responsibilities and work and its patriotic underpinnings, was near the heart of his infidelity is worth taking note of.

By his own admission, Gingrich was the sort of fellow for whom political power was personally destructive.  At least if we take him at his word, anyway.  History is full of examples of the type, though there’s no need to revel in it.  All men have limits that they reach, and grasping beyond them tends to prompt their lives to unravel and pain to ensue.  We are not all great men, and some of us not even very good men.  You may call this all judgmental:  I might call it personal experience, though my wife and friends would get to it first.   There is nothing more important, Peter Whimsey once put it, than knowing one’s own limits.

The question, of course, is whether knowing what we know about Gingrich’s life outside the context of grace whether we should vote to expand the power and influence he had because he now lives inside it.  I know of no final argument that could settle the discussion, no plank or reason that could finally persuade.

But to me, the case still seems to be strongly on the side of not voting for the fellow, if only for the reasons that we may be placing him in the path of temptation that he has already confessed he could not handle before.  The counsel of Scripture is not, at least as I recall, on the side of throwing ourselves in front of the train and praying that our newfound power of the Spirit will suffice.  ”Flee temptation” is something like a command, even if we sometimes need others to tell us when to run.

Of course, we haven’t even mentioned his desire to go to the moon, an intemperate fantasy built on imaginary buckets of non-existant cash.   We should, at some point, have the purely substantial discussion about policies and what would be best for America.  But until then, we ought to note all of Newt’s own words, and pause at the thought of doing unto him what he has already confessed originally contributed to his corruption.

One more round on the concerns about evangelicals and Gingrich.  Jerry L. Walls is a philosopher and the author of numerous books, the most recent of which was listed among Christianity Today’s top books of the year.  If you are interested in submitting a differing perspective, send me a note and I’ll consider it.  Equal time, and all that!  

Many conservative Christians are enthusiastically supporting Newt Gingrich for President, despite the fact that his personal lifestyle for most of his life has been sharply and starkly at odds with the values they profess to cherish. As one who cannot share this enthusiasm I want to articulate what I believe the issue is here, and what it is not. First, it is emphatically not a matter of whether God, or we, have forgiven Newt. I am in no position to judge his heart or the sincerity of his repentance or the status of his relationship with God, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his repentance is sincere and that God has forgiven him. The issue is not forgiveness, but rather character, and forgiveness is not the same as proven character. I believe rapists, murderers, child molesters, persons who fail to report suspected molesters, slave traders, and so on can all be forgiven. I believe in John Newton’s “Amazing Grace” and I well know we all need it. But I doubt anyone would argue that a rapist, a murderer, or a child molester should be running for President.

Not all sins are the same, despite the pious insistence that they are. Yes, “sins are sins,” and all separate us from God but some cut deeper and do far more extensive damage to persons (starting with the persons who commit them), do far more to destroy relationships and undermine trust, and consequently require much more time and serious effort to repair.

Nor is the issue an unrealistic demand for perfection. No one has a perfect past, and few, if any have a perfect present. But it is a stunning impoverishment of standards to dismiss multiple lies, adulteries, and hypocrisies as mere foibles that fall just somewhere shy of perfection. While Newt was going hard after Clinton for his moral failures and campaigning on family values, he was engaged in an ongoing adulterous affair.

So again, am I suggesting we demand perfection of our candidates? Should we make an issue of every high school and college prank, indiscretion, drunken weekend, wild party, and so on? Of course not. But we are not talking here about adolescent behavior. We are talking about his behavior as a mature adult, while holding elected office.

The fact that Newt thinks his history of moral and ethical infidelity is irrelevant to his qualifications to be President, the fact that he can wax passionate with moral indignation against those who raise these issues, represents a wildly distorted sense of moral judgment and moral proportion. Ironically, he is the mirror image of the postmodern who rejects traditional morality, but knows exactly how to draw a huge ovation from an audience by attacking intolerance with passionate fervor.

King David fell into adultery and he repented and was forgiven. Notably, when confronted with his adultery, he did not turn on Nathan, and say, “Seriously, I am appalled you can be making an issue of the fact that I banged Bathsheba, given the enormous political and economic issues facing this country.” David was forgiven. But he never regained the moral credibility he previously had, and after this incident, his Kingdom began to unravel in various ways, as Nathan predicted. Indeed, it is surely no coincidence that we see this beginning to happen one chapter after Nathan’s confrontation with David, precisely in the form of his sons mimicking his worst behavior (2 Samuel 13). Amnon rapes his sister Tamar, and when David ignores the matter and does nothing about it, Tamar’s brother Absalom plots Amnon’s murder and successfully carries it out. Given David’s adultery and devious murder of Bathsheba’s husband Uriah, he was poorly situated to confront his sons with any sort of moral credibility or hold them accountable for doing the very same sort of things he had done. The King inevitably set a moral tone for the nation, whether for good or for ill. David eventually lost so much of his previous authority that his own son Absalom could successfully garner enough support to lead a rebellion and temporarily usurp the throne.

Again, I am not saying we should demand perfection of our leaders. If we insist on perfection or nothing, we will invariably get nothing. That is not my point. But we do need a President who can lead with moral authority and address moral issues with the sort of credibility that comes from a history of integrity. Newt has forfeited the ability to do that by his multiple betrayals and deceptions, and therefore the right to ask us to support him with election to our highest public office.

I believe Evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics are making a huge long term error in supporting Newt despite these obvious liabilities. For many, the bottom line is that Obama must be defeated. They relish the image of Newt waxing him in a debate. Well, their error is the mirror image of those who elected Obama in the first place. A man who had very thin credentials and experience was elected four years ago, largely on the strength of soaring rhetoric and wildly unrealistic promises. Now those who want to see him defeated are willing to support a guy who is lacking in moral substance but who is a great debater and appears to have a good chance to win in November. Christians have been far too uncritical in supporting candidates who are willing to mouth support for their views or do an interview with Dobson or talk about God in a Baptist church, regardless of whether these candidates have shown by their actions any deep commitment to their values and convictions.

Many observers already believe conservative Christians are opportunistic hypocrites. Their support of Newt only confirms this impression and deprives them of any credibility if they ever want to make an issue of “traditional moral values” again. As an obvious example, opponents of gay marriage, a flashpoint conservative issue, will find themselves in a very awkward position if they expect Newt to address this issue with credibility. Indeed, supporters of gay marriage will understandably, and perhaps rightly, scorn conservative Christians who support Newt, and then turn around and try to make the case that homosexuality is a threat to the sanctity of marriage and traditional “family values.” Let me be clear. I believe homosexual behavior is condemned as sinful by scripture, and is morally wrong. But the Bible has far more to say about adultery than it does about homosexuality. Moreover, adultery is often used in the Bible as an illustration of idolatry, for it is a profound form of betrayal that deeply images our infidelity to God. For adultery is by definition a lie as well as a treacherous form of personal betrayal.

Christians who can wink at Newt’s multiple adulteries, exacerbated by the specter of his hypocritical attack on Clinton while doing so, should not be surprised when supporters of gay marriage see them as mimicking the same sort of laughable hypocrisy if they try to make a moral issue of gay marriage. They will understandably appear utterly arbitrary and unprincipled to their critics.

I am aware that for many conservative Christians, the foremost issue in this election is the economy, and the staggering national debt, an issue of great moral significance in its own right. I could not agree more that the national debt is an issue of urgent importance and that the economy desperately needs better management. But as urgent as these issues are, I do not believe they warrant the sort of compromise I believe conservative Christians are making in their support of Gingrich.

The bottom line for me: if Newt is the nominee, I will not be voting in November.

The maelstrom of criticism on yesterday’s post has all been good fun and even better learning, the sort of raucous and respectful comment threads that are simply a joy.

It’s got me thinking, though, of what we expect from a President.  I have been accused of expecting too much, of requiring a standard of perfection that I do not meet and thereby throwing the first stone upon a fellow who manifestly has not measured up.

Let’s set aside the practical questions of this election, practical questions which shall resolve themselves soon enough.  The issue at hand is how we think about such things, the presuppositions that we go into the voting booth with and whether those are in fact true.  We are well beyond the point of significantly altering the political landscape, but never beyond retooling ourselves.  And it is we, the amorphous and undefined public, who stand responsible for the media and political environments that has left us with a rather disappointing crop to pick from.

But to my point:  we live in an age where the only currency is authenticity, where the most zealous buffoon can earn the qualified dismissal that “at least he is sincere.”  It is earnestness that covers a multitude of sins.  If a candidacy doesn’t have it, as Mitt Romney clearly does not, then he will find himself on the outside.  Obama was said to have it, but I don’t think ever really did.  That was an overblown attachment predicated on an excellent personal narrative and unmitigated political hope.  The times have changed, and his connection with people has been frayed.

Yet authenticity’s triumph renders “hypocrisy” our greatest vice.  Nothing new that I’m arguing for here:  go read Andrew Potter’s The Authenticity Hoax.  I did this weekend, and stumbled over this:

A fixation on authenticity and a candidate’s character creates an opening for attack ads by the opposition.  But this in turn gives a candidate an incentive to lie about his past or hide his true character, which provides jobs for all the spin doctors and image consultants whom nobody likes.  In the end…it isn’t the spin doctors who have drained the authenticity from politics; rather, it is the desire for authenticity that provides opportunities for men who can help you fake it.  The only alternative is to vote only for candidates who are so upright, honest, and unimpeachably dull that you wouldn’t want them having supper with you, let alone running our country.

Quoting isn’t endorsing, and I’d hold on to the distinction between ‘authenticity’ and ‘character’ longer than Potter does.  But even he notes that in this environment, it’s social conservatives who are most at risk of being charged with hypocrisy:  after all, our platform is not laissez faire on questions of morals, and that makes the situation a might more precarious.

I’d also note that the authenticity fixation allows for the occasional person to break through without the image consultants, and to position themselves as outside the whole political game.  ”Authenticity contrarians,” if you will.  Or political hipsters.  And like any contrarians, their unique force is derivative, rather than (wait for it!) fundamental.  This is Newt’s gimmick:  position yourself as so authentic as to be outside the media’s grasp, and mediation’s grasp.  Run an “untraditional” campaign, and eschew the appearance of being subject to the media consultants who cost him his job.  For a more disciplined, careful candidate, the ruse might actually work.  But for someone like Gingrich, it’s a disaster in waiting.  The moment the messaging discipline has to come is the moment Newt’s energy will dry up.  We saw the beginnings of it in last night’s debate, I dare say, where Newt was nothing if not subdued.

And therein lies the problem with contrarianism, affable, political, or otherwise.  It can get you noticed, but once people start paying attention, what then shall you say?  And how shall you say it?  Newt’s only hope in a general election is to run against the media, and he had better hope they provide him an endless stream of reasons to denounce them.  Because in an authenticity environment, where being able to pose as the outsider is more valuable and effective than anything else, the moment he becomes an insider into the world of politics, he will invariably self-destruct.

What then, do we expect from our Presidents?  Conservatives might yearn for Calvin Coolidge’s incredible fiscal restraint, but there’s no room for his verbal thriftiness.  If ever a fellow might be a bore at dinner, I suspect it would be him.   But the virtues of discipline, restraint, frugality–the sorts of virtues that we might want in Congress and the White House–don’t play well in an age that has confused authenticity and character.  And so the fellows whose families are normal and whose steadiness seems unnerving are in danger of giving way to the most brash and boisterous candidate of them all.

Newt has, we are told, won the South Carolina primary on the backs of evangelicals.  I’ve been an  occasional defender of the demographic against its many critics, but this is all a bit much to take.

The surprise for everyone in this is how the rank hostility toward the “liberal media” has played into Newt’s rise.  The key moment, of course, is the absurd moment when Gingrich lectured John King for raising the minor matter of the accusation that he once asked for an open marriage.  If there was a moment when I have been more disappointed by Republicans, I cannot remember it.  Forget the accuracy of the story for a moment–these were, as has been pointed out once or twice, formerly legitimate inquiries to be made of public officials, as Gingrich knows better than most.

The critiques of all this from Douthat and Doug Wilson are worth reading in full, and my own position is generally of a piece with their respective readings.  Different lines of attack, but both score points.

Despite Newt providing us all with the occasion for the best satire of the political season so far (with gratitude to Ben Domenech), I can see exactly zero upside for evangelicals to support his candidacy.

Two friends emailed me not long after the South Carolina primary saying that they wouldn’t vote for the fellow.  Both under the age of thirty, both done with the charade.

In short, Newt’s serial monogamy and the possibility of the open marriage accusation undermines his legitimacy as a viable leader of those who claim to care about marriage.  There is a little charge known as “hypocrisy,” and the evangelicals foisting Newt upon us have opened themselves to it.  Practices are not incidental to our understanding of a thing:  they are a way of authenticating it, of manifesting its intelligibility and its truth.

The retort is that evangelicals affirm the possibility of forgiveness, and indeed we do.  Gingrich’s repentance for his failures seems genuine, and we have no real reason to question it.  But while salvation may be instantaneous, sanctification is something slower.  It can take a while to add virtue to our faith, particularly if we didn’t have much to begin with (as seems to be the case with Gingrich).  Rejoice, then, with the angels in heaven over the sinner who keeps repenting.  But maybe leave the keys to the nuclear weapons to someone else.

The unstated premise in all this is that what happens in private ought to be taken into consideration when evaluating a candidate.  Set aside the fact that Newt once championed the case:  is it not the same principle that stands beneath the conservative opposition to gay marriage?  It may be the case that Newt has reformed, but he ought to at least grant that the question is still legitimate.

The evangelical support for Gingrich, then, erodes and undermines their moral witness on the question of marriage, making it seem nothing more than platitudes that are conveniently tossed aside for convenience and charisma.

The evangelical writers raised a fuss over the religious right’s recent offering of support to Santorum, and perhaps justifiably so.  But such support is a welcome moment of political sanity (even if offered far too late to be effective, once again) in what is obviously a misguided evangelical political world.  The real tragedy is that no one in South Carolina listened to them.  The evangelical political witness might be more effective if they had.

If you’re scoring at home, then, Santorum’s in the race, and Ron Paul if you must (though you mustn’t).  I like Santorum and have said nice things about him in the past.  His willingness to engage in discussion sometimes leads him to cringeworthy quotes, and he lays on the foreign policy a bit strong.  And there’s the matter of getting in, which he might struggle with.

But he actually brings some substance to the table, a virtue that I would like to further in any way I can.   And if he’s still in it on Super Tuesday, I’ll go caucus for him here in Missouri.  If he’s not, I’ll toss in for Romney (who I will support in the general, should it come down to it), or simply throw away my vote as a silent matter of protest.  But I will not, can not, support Newt Gingrich.  And I’m a little embarrassed that it even has to be said.

Postscript:  My friends John Mark and Frank Beckwith are also worth reading.  I would interact with them more, except I’ve been warding off a cold all weekend and can’t quite bring it together.